From: Manuel Rosario
Message: 4773
Date: 2000-11-17
>From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>_________________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To: cybalist@egroups.com
>To: cybalist@egroups.com
>Subject: Re: [tied] Wine
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:28:08 +0100
>
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:16:41 GMT, "Glen Gordon"
><glengordon01@...> wrote:
>
> >Using extra-IE evidence as the core of your evidence is foolish.
> >What is the evidence _within_ IE?
>
>There is some, as I said. *leikw- < *laipu- vs. *leip- <
>*laipa-/laipi-, "remain, stick to", for instance.
>
>Furthermore, sometimes that's just the way it is. There is no
>evidence for Verner's law _within_ Germanic, it requires external
>comparison with Vedic, Greek, etc. But you have to accept
>Indo-European, of course.
>
> >Who says there was even a
> >three-way contrast between palatalized, plain and labial in IE? I only
>know
> >of *k versus *kW, or *k^~*s^ versus *k in any given language. Do you have
> >strong evidence of a three way contrast [*k^/*k/*kW] in ProtoIE (without
> >resorting to extra-IE correspondances)?
>
>Yes, I think there was a three way contrast. There seems to be new
>evidence from Luwian (I think), but I haven't been able to look into
>that yet.
>
> >Miguel:
> >>But there are more phenomena that suddenly begin to look >understandable
>if
> >>we assume palatalized and labialized variants of >the consonants: the
>*n/*i
> >>stems like *poti-/*potn- (< *potn^-), or >the verb *nem- ~ *yem-, some
> >>*l/*i alternations such as in the >"liver" word (< *l^a:pwnt-), and
>maybe
> >>even the Caland system (*n -> >-r ~ -n-; *nw > -u ~ -m-; *n^ > -i ~
>-n-).
> >
> >You've accused me of "assumptions"
>
>When?
>
> >and yet here you are saying "...if we assume...".
> >Your theory makes nothing understandable.
>
>Discuss the data, then.
>
>
>=======================
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>mcv@...